I like Shiney's way of categorising things, posted in the comments here:
Isn't this about degree? Govt provides:
Tier 1 - A standing army, police and certainty of contract (rule of law, property rights, justice, whatever)... basically to stop the bad guys, whether domestic or forrin', taking yer stuff.
Tier 2 - #1 plus basic infrastructure like roads, a power grid, sewerage, rubbish collection to 'grease the economic wheels'.
Tier 3 - #1 #2 plus some 'services' as payer/insurer - such as basic education and basic health service, a fire brigade.
Beyond #3 we get into increasing levels of nutty socialism via coercive taxation to the point where the government thinks it can tell me how much fruit to eat, whether I can have me mates around for a barbie, what pronoun I ought to use and how high up the privilege scale I am.... me I get about -500 points being white, male, straight, English, over 50 and from the West Country.
Trouble is... we are where we are... at about level #25 on 'Shiney's measure of nutty socialism' scale.
Back to the original point about NI.... MW is right - roll all the taxes into a flat tax and tell the proles how much all the stuff beyond #3 is actually costing them then see where we get to. And I'd wager that there'd be a lot less nutty stuff than there is now.
When you are debating what the government 'should' do, you can either apply some basic principles - but which principles? - or just ask on a case-by-case basis, are we, all of us as a society, better off if they do it (i.e. do we end up with more of the stuff we want, steady incomes, goods, services, clean air, low crime, all round 'freedom' etc), always asking whether the private sector is helped or hindered?
Everybody will have their own list.
Personally, I would put fire brigade into #2 - it's not really there for the benefit of the mug whose house catches fire, it's there for the benefit of his immediate neighbours. It's the same with rubbish collection. Responsible people would happily pay on an individual basis to have it taken away. Public refuse collection is for the benefit of the neighbours of the inconsiderate arseholes who would just let it pile high, rot and attract vermin, or do fly-tipping. It's easier for the council just to collect it all than to try and force everybody to sort themselves out.
Also, if the council gets one contractor in to do everybody, there are economies of scale and better bargaining power for residents. It's low-cost compulsory mass insurance which directly adds to land values, so is an ideal candidate for being funded out of LVT.
Monday, 20 September 2021
Shiney's tiers of government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
The trouble is the 'Topsy problem'.
That is all bureaucracies always seek to expand. Go and read Parkinson's law or Mises on Bureaucracy.
Hence the trick is to keep government small and restrict what it can stick its nose into.
My 'plan' is
Tier one.
Stage 1 Central Government's principle role. The 'monopoly of coercion to protect the nation form external threats and from one citizen being coerced by another. Record keeping of real estate ownership. Rule of Law. (NB a pandemic response would come under 'defence of the realm'). Plus all the usual foreign affairs stuff.
Stage 2 A minor bit of co-ordination with 'infrastructure' - really doing its best to stop 'rent seeking' and acting to enable the construction of things like roads and railways (Dear God do NOT let them build stuff on spec).
Stage 3 - tax collection for primarily LVT and other 'user charges'.
Local Government
Stopping free riders. Fire brigade. Local policing. Bit of local pothole fixing stuff around civics.
And that's about it. Personally I would get government, especially central government right out of health services and especially education - they just cannot be trusted with either. If they start issuing 'vouchers' all the usual rent seekers and other chancers will turn up.
@MW
Thanks for the hat-tip.
And expanding your themes if the "thing" we want CAN'T be described as "low-cost compulsory mass insurance which directly adds to land values" then central govenment probably shouldn't be doing/funding it.
M
Lola
With you there on the bureaucracy thing - public choice theory and all that.
I'd maybe move a bit towards @MW's position where the state funds (not necessarily does) a bit more, but I think we've all agreed its about degree.
Sh, I don't like definitions, it's all a bit hyper-intellectual, but "low-cost compulsory mass insurance which directly adds to land values" is as good as any.
It's then a question of finding whether there is a link between "what the govt does and/or prevents us doing" and "land values", and if so the degree. Does the smoking ban enhance land values? Speed limits in resi areas, definitely yes, but on motorways..?
Also, assuming we have more LVT coming in than costs going out, what do we do with the rest? UBI? Pay off govt debt? Is it better spent on education, whether it enhances land values? Those aren't aims in themselves, it's a happy bonus of the system.
"Beyond #3 we get into increasing levels of nutty socialism via coercive taxation to the point where the government thinks it can tell me how much fruit to eat,...."
It's not really nutty socialism, it's nutty totalitarianism. The UK has made much more progress towards being a totalitarian state under the Tories than it has under Labour.
@L are you proposing that education should not be compulsory? If it is, the government needs to provide an state funded option. Can't see how an advanced economy can function without the vast majority of the populace formally educated. I'm very satisfied with my kids' state funded education, albeit with a lot more 'choice' than most, and would barely be able to afford to educate one of them privately, never mind all three
@B
"It's not really nutty socialism, it's nutty totalitarianism. The UK has made much more progress towards being a totalitarian state under the Tories than it has under Labour"
Socialism == Totalitarianism
The 'Tories', since 2005 at least, are just Blue-Labour (Cameron said so when he was leader of HM Opposition so it must be true).
Your point is?
M, just because every other country does something doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do.
But the arguments for state/free/compulsory education are overwhelming and any country that didn't do it would quickly fall far behind. One of the first things we recommend to developing countries is universal education for all girls and boys.
Up to what age is a different topic, I'd be happy with 15.
Mom and MW.
Education. I am not sure at all that the UK would 'fall behind'. Most people would want their children educated for as far as they could go. There would be a few that didn't want that and they do that now. Taking out all the bureaucracy and opening up education to competitive non-state providers would lead to price falls and quality improvements and the delivery of what the customer wanted - i.e. not what some grotty little blob based woke 'educationalist' thinks they should have.
If oyu look back the UK was blessed with a whole range of educational providers from basic prep schools, through the estimable 'mechanics institutes' to major universities. It's all been screwed up - notably by that sh1t Blair.
The increasing nationalisation and centralisation of UK education over my lifetime has reduced choice and availability. (e.g. I am struggling to get further day release education for one or other of m my employees in classroom setting where they will benefit from meeting other people doing the same thing. All In can get is crappy rent seek providers leeching on taxpayer subsidy).
And I'd scrap all compulsion. No 'truant ladies' for me.
L, yes, the bureaucrats have made a mess of it and do not teach people what they want to learn or what they need to know. We can learn a lot from the past and from what other countries do (or don't do).
"Taking out all the bureaucracy and opening up education to competitive non-state providers would lead to price falls"
Well no, private schools are massive great rent seeking enterprises, they overcharge wildly.
The Tory idea of fixed amount vouchers where the provider is not allowed to charge top-up fees is fine in principle, except
1. They only give licences to their mates, many of whom are religious nutters
2. Heaven forfend we start funding 'Islamic' schools.
3. The idea hasn't really caught on
4. Some of these schools are really, really bad, corrupt etc.
MW
Private schools rent seek because of the monopoly of the state sector. Introduce real competition, or rather scrap the state monopoly to free up provision, and competitors will soon drive down prices/make it impossible to rent seek. Yes, the likes of Eton and Harrow will continue to extort but generally they serve a small coterie of their mates, snobs and foreign idiots - their 'club' if you like.
Lola,
I'm not sure that there's much you can do about the price of private education. A great deal of it is about the cost of people and buildings. And then all the various regulations that schools have to follow, which are undoubtedly quadruple gold plated, like most of government.
The other thing that private schools spend a lot of money on is marketing. I don't just mean ads and brochures, but things like how nice the buildings are, how well the grounds are tended. Or they add facilities that sound amazing but which kids really don't need (one has a professional quality recording studio).
@Tim
That's like saying you can't do anything about the price of anything.
Go to a fancy restaurant... pay through the nose. Want a burger and chips? go to Maccy Ds.
If the burger and chips == basic education delivered efficiently with no frills then the price will fall. Its the state education system that adds all the unnecessary crap.
Tim A
I am pretty sure that there is also a great deal of 'value pricing' going on. But, yes, what you say is also true. But remember part of the denationalisation process is to shut down The Blob and all it's regulationism as well as the wholesale reform of taxation, shifting the burden from labour and capital and onto rents. The fixed costs of the whole of production could well be halved or better. And keen competition works wonders in the competitive market.
TA: "The other thing that private schools spend a lot of money on is marketing. I don't just mean ads and brochures, but things like how nice the buildings are, how well the grounds are tended. Or they add facilities that sound amazing but which kids really don't need (one has a professional quality recording studio)."
Exactly!
1. They charge parents rent for the privilege of having their kids go to a school with other kids whose parents are prepared to pay for the privilege of going to school with your kids.
2. They have good pupil-teacher ratios etc, but half their money is spent on show off crap like recording studios, ski-ing trips etc.
MW / TA Ampleforth was where this was developed as a school project...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_Roadster
Of course as to 'marketing'. And why not? Only 10% of it works, but which 10%.
But my point about competition driving down these costs stands.
The thing that really needs attacking is the 'old boys network'. That is Eton (say) is used by those who would presume to 'govern' us - as in 'rule' us, as in tell us what to do and get us to pay them whilst they tell us what to do. Now that does annoy.
Serendipity strikes again! Came across this:-
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0021.html
Basically discovering that education does not drive per capita GDP growth. Hence my contention that nationalised education has most to do with indoctrination, not economic well being.
Well no, private schools are massive great rent seeking enterprises, they overcharge wildly.
Is your experience of private schools limited to London? If it is, you might like to consider that anything like that in London will be expensive, simply because London is expensive, and we all know why. If your school is in rural West Wales, then your fees are going to be far more reasonable, simply because that's what local people can afford. You appear to be making the cardinal error of assuming a fixed relationship between what something costs to provide or make and what it can be sold for.
1. They charge parents rent for the privilege of having their kids go to a school with other kids whose parents are prepared to pay for the privilege of going to school with your kids.
Not all schools do. Some do, but then that it is obvious from the first that that's what they are doing and you can simply decide you are not going to pay for that "service" and send your kids elsewhere.
The thing that really needs attacking is the 'old boys network'. That is Eton (say) is used by those who would presume to 'govern' us - as in 'rule' us, as in tell us what to do and get us to pay them whilst they tell us what to do. Now that does annoy.
Apart from Eton, the whole "old boy network" thing is a bit of a myth and even with Eton, the fact that you are an Old Etonian is only helpful if you go into certain occupations, like politics. I have a friend who is an Old Etonian and that fact hasn't helped him a bit in his working life running a bookshop. I went to a similarly famous school and can safely say that I have not once gained any benefit in the form of any old boy network from having done so. Any large organisation has a similar effect, people who work for it in their early years become unofficial members of an old boys and girls club that helps them make contact throughout their working life because, in all sectors of commerce, it's always a small world.
Shiney, socialism may equal totalitarianism, but that doesn't make the reverse true. All modern governments tend towards totalitarianism. The Libertarian-totalitarian axis is orthoganal to the left-right axis. Would you be happier under a right-wing totalitarian government?
B: "You appear to be making the cardinal error of assuming a fixed relationship between what something costs to provide or make and what it can be sold for."
That is exactly what I am not doing - that's why I refer to their income as largely rent.
As you say, if prices are set by what people can afford, and not cost of provision, then there is a rental element. Which is low in West Wales and at least half the fees in London.
Well yes, you are right about the rent-seeking element, but this is not exactly uncommon and is found in the sale of many goods and services, anything that has any element of social cachet, but not about "overcharging wildly". Would you say that anyone selling a house in central London is "overcharging wildly", simply because a similar house is so much cheaper in Neath?
B, Ferraris have snob value, but the profit margins at luxury car makers are - by and large - not super-profits or rent. Some of them make losses. Lotus goes bankrupt every ten years or so. Those things are expensive to make and cost accordingly. (waste of money, but hey).
Rent = overcharging = prices vastly in excess of costs = super-profits.
Post a Comment